Blog: There really is no substitute for hearing a candidate in person

On Tuesday, I had an opportunity to hear Sen. Colleen Hanabusa at a Kahala Business Association and Kaimuki Business and Professional Association luncheon at the Waialae Country Club. 

Hanabusa, who is running for Congress, has been a State senator since 1998 and is currently the State of Hawaii Senate President. She is also an unapologetic Democratic during a time when the major parties are having identity crises and people are looking for integrity in their candidates.

The event was supposed to be a forum for both Congressional candidates (Hanabusa and her opponent, current First District Congressional Representative Charles Djou) to discuss the issues. However, at the last minute, Djou had to go to Washington and was therefore unable to attend. 

Having never heard either of the candidates speak, I was disappointed that Djou was not a part of the forum as planned. I really wanted to hear from both of them, not to mention the fact that I wanted to report on a debate, not just a single candidate.

Instead I just listened intently to what she had to say. Given the business crowd in attendance and the current climate of fiscal anxiety in general, Hanabusa focused her speech around the economy.

She talked about her extensive legislative experience, and why it matters as far as having an effective strategy for getting bills enacted.

Hanabusa also discussed the federal stimulus bill, and said it has been vital to kickstarting Hawaii’s recovery through a variety of concrete programs as well as generally brightening the public’s outlook. She claimed that Hawaii’s recovery from the recession has been swifter than that of other states because of the stimulus—despite the fact that she feels the funds should have come faster and should have been better targeted. Hanabusa also put the notion of federal funding into historical context (Hawaii has apparently always been a large recipient of federal monies, which are part and parcel of our economic stability). 

She emphasized the importance of tourism and construction with respect to recovery, the so-called “shovel ready” projects, with their tendency to bring in external money, increase spending, and therefore create a multiplier effect. She defended tax cuts for the middle class and delved into the economics that argue for giving them proportionally higher cuts than the top 2 percent.

None of this was surprising. What was surprising was that she smiled more often and more sincerely than I would have predicted. She came across as a thoughtful yet strong woman. It was refreshing to see her personality emerge in a way that it does not in her ads or her campaign website.

For instance, someone asked about her view on ethanol. She admitted that she, like many others, had overestimated its potential to solve America’s energy problems. This admission led her to expound upon her concerns about the limitations of solar and wind, despite the obvious case for them in Hawaii, due to the difficulty in storing the energy they produce. 

Hanabusa talked about support for developing algae as a viable fuel, and stressed that when talking about fuel it has to be of jet fuel quality—we are on an island, after all! If you go to Hanabusa’s website and look under issues, you will not find anything about biofuels in the renewable energy section, which points to how incomplete these sites can be for someone like me who is interested in the specifics of an issue such as energy alternatives.

Hanabusa also relayed an anecdote about how she started to revise her position on ethanol, despite her interest in preserving agricultural land: She got tired of hearing her husband complain about its poor performance in boats! She went on to say it’s OK to admit that you are wrong about something after reevaluating an issue in light of new information. Both statements made her seem more human, and neither insight is gained from her website.

Her apparent candor made me wish the luncheon were longer. There are so many things I would have liked to hear about, had there been more time: education, civil rights, and her record of fighting for women’s issues, to name a few. In other words, seeing her raised as many questions for me as it answered. But now I am motivated to do some more research online, though I know I will have to do some real digging.

It also made we wish we had heard from Djou. I might have seen another side to him, just as Jon Letman’s article pointed out that he is more of an environmentalist than most Republicans. I wonder what else I might have learned. 

Most of all, Tuesday’s lunch reminded me that there really is no substitute for hearing a candidate live. But sadly, the opportunities for most of us to do so are limited, expensive, or unappealing. I probably would not have attended a country club luncheon had it not been an opportunity to do some reporting.

Voting along straight party lines or by rote name recognition is all too common, and it’s hard not to make the connection that this continuing trend is due to a lack of connection between candidates and their constituents. I have certainly been guilty of both practices and can only hope I will become a more informed voter in the future.

Truth be told, I was already for Hanabusa. I voted for her in the special election back in May. But I realized as I was sitting and listening to her speak that I had had a very poor understanding of who she is. Now I have a slightly better one. And perhaps, when I cast my vote in November, I might even feel a connection.